Even though the way that Steve made comments about V3 is strange. However, the picture with J1 tells everything. I really don't like too small camera too. It looks similar to J1. I guess he just feel too disappointed about the V3 and its price tag. The camera has no way to sell meaningful volume at $1200, may be half of the price, and only for those original V1/V2 fans.

I am big fan of V1/V2, but I will take a look at Sony NEX-A6000. If its performance is similar to V1, I will go for it.

Steve's been an advocate of the Nikon1 system since day1 - when everyone else was bashing it, he was praising it.

I think that by setting such a high price, Nikon has set expectations too high. It's a lot to live up to.

I almost get the impression that the engineering team (doing a great and innovative job) and the marketing team (or whoever is setting the price... and promoting the camera) are pulling in different directions.

I can only image how frustrated the Nikon1 design/engineering team must feel.

I'm still trying to sort this all out. The a6000 seems to be a completely different beast. With an APS-C sensor the lenses are not going to be small if some reach is needed. Seems like the choice would be more an a6000 vs a DX camera.

I already have an FX camera. If I am going to buy something that is almost as big and heavy as a DX camera with lenses almost as big and heavy, then I'll buy a DX camera so I can at least use all of my existing lenses.

Some of the other options given have poor lens choice or aren't even interchangeable lens (x100S). So I for one am a bit baffled by the advice. The v3 seems to fit a unique spot that is different enough from DX to be with the trouble.

I am considering the v3 as a companion to my FX camera, but am honestly somewhat nervous about the image quality and low light capability. If it can come close to what my D300 used to do (dof differences aside) then I think it would work for me. Even if it would land somewhere between the D200 and D300 in low light capability that would still be impressive. But I'm really not sure.

A6000 has already proven to be so-so at AF-C, so maybe he's referring to it being nearly as fast in AF-S and he has always loved his Olympus MFT cameras anyway... I'd just like to say the V3 is not built cheap. It feels polished and small. Small doesn't always equate cheap. Seems weird of him to do such a cursory report.

Funny for the last year in several forums especially the Sony forum, many folks complained about the RX1 and other cameras not really being pocketable, Nikon makes the V3 very pocketable and folks are bitching that it is too small including Huff. Manufacturers will never win, they are fighting a losing battle. Huff is just a guy who has a web site putting forth his 2 cents. If folks take his feelings and word on cameras as gospel , thats their problem. I never read or don't read a book just because of one person's review or say so, I do my homework and come to my own conclusion to suit my needs and desires. Huff is a good read once in a while, but he is not my decision maker. WC

has been as adamant and pro Nikon 1 system as he has been of micro four thirds/Olympus for the most part.

If you doubt this, read his Nikon 1 review and his review on the F1.2 32mm lens. I am sure when he did this he got a bunch of high fives, but now he says this and some people who I would bet money on a Poker table would have jumped in joy if it was a positive review, now are questioning him.

Ah, brand love.

For those who question him on good faith (and I see at least some in this thread too), I decided a long time ago that Steve's website had gone too commercial to take too seriously. So pro review or cons review, I basically look for particular points and what supporting evidence the review makes avoiding the OMG EXCLAMATION POINT fanfare of the NEW AND SHINY CAMERA that NOW I LIKE.

And Steve if you are reading this, I am not saying you are not bringing value but we need to apply some level of discretionary salt to the caps and exclamation marks

Personally I like the V3 for being small. I would have preferred a bit of more grip horizontally (i.e. no depth- like a bit more horizontal extension).

Have not seen his review yet but I would agree it would be nice to have that. Also most people at this point agree the price is a bit high.

-- hide signature --

Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- I photograph black cats in coal mines at night...“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” - George Orwell

Nikon makes the V3 very pocketable and folks are bitching that it is too small including Huff.

I think you will find people on both sides of the fence of camera size, thus the mixed reactions. I personally like a smaller camera. For instance i hear people raving about how small the x100 is, but i found mine to be rather large.

Huff is just a guy who has a web site putting forth his 2 cents.

True, but what makes Huff's 2 cents meaningful in this case was his early enthusiasm for the 1 system in the face of all the criticism it received. His glowing reviews probably induced a lot of folks to give it a shot. His about face on the V3 is telling in that regard.

Wow. Well a part of me wants to give him kudos only because someone who can be so fanatical about a camera model in the line to do this 180 must be at least speaking with some degree of honesty

I would agree that there are *some* aspects of the V3 that feel a little cheap. The shutter button does feel a bit P&S (actually it pretty much is). But I am surprised he says this liking the V1 model when the V1 model had in my opinion horribly built plastic buttons int he back and dial wheel which made quite the stark contrast with the solidly built body.

So I don't get that. I mean, I would have expected him to have said that also of the V1 to some degree.

On AF- well if the Sony AF is that fast... I could understand that. But - and admittedly I am most likely in a minority- the Sony does not have an e-shutter for quiet, which the V3 does. And the V3 does it fast enough avoiding skew at least in the situations I used it.

Market wise I can't deny Sony is making a great value proposition. Maybe I can wait a little bit and see what happens price wise. I think as sold in the USA the V3 should be $900 TOPS if not $800.

-- hide signature --

Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- I photograph black cats in coal mines at night...“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” - George Orwell

I'd just like to say the V3 is not built cheap. It feels polished and small. Small doesn't always equate cheap. Seems weird of him to do such a cursory report.

This is the part that made me feel like his post was just a knee-jerk reaction to the high price tag and integration of micro-SD card. Early adopters on this forum have generally been pretty positive on build quality (aside from the shutter release button).

As far as everything else, he's entitled to his own opinion but so am I. I agree about the price being high and the micro-SD card being a pain, but when I saw the V3+EVF resting in the palm of his hand it was the first time so far that I've really wanted one. I love my V2 and I'll be keeping it for a long while, but the V3 looks more portable because of the smaller grip and the ability to take off the EVF. I'm curious to see what his final verdict is if he gives it a chance.

This review (or should I say V3 trashing) is simply too short on words and facts. I do not know why the size suddenly becomes an issue. As long the ergo metrics is right the small size fits the 1" sensor and the Nikon 1 line. However, build quality is an other issue. Based on the way Steve steps on the V3 in his review it would only be fair to rise specific issue with the quality. Every one agrees the price is outrages so I ignore this subject. The micro SD is for me a non issue. This has simply nothing to do with the quality and handling of the camera. It is just a storage device and that's it. Much more attention should be given to how the camera handles, its IQ, etc. We all know that the optional EVF is a bad design for the V3. It should be built into the camera or at least have its one port! A fair review should address these issues.

Steve's certainly entitled to his opinion, but I also remember when he gave a fairly non-glowing mini-review of the V2. What did it really come down to at that time? Price. That was when the V1 wsa on fire sale for about $300. The V2 was going for its initial release price of $800 at that time. So... in his assessment of image quality versus the cost of the camera, he felt that the V1 was the clear winner. I suppose it was, to a certain degree, at those prices at that time. Does that mean that the V2 was somehow a highly flawed product? Well no, he never really cited any evidence of that, he just didn't think the V2 offered enough image improvement over the V1 to justify the cost difference. As a result of Steve's relatively negative review, a whole bunch of people wrote off the V2.

Well, here we are again. The V3 is even more expensive, the pictures aren't a gigantic leap forward in IQ, and Steve declares he's may not do a full review of the V3 due to his disappointment. Well... he only gave a very brief review of the V2 but... wait for it... now he says:

"I have some nice 1 system lenses so I may buy a V2 once it goes to fire sale clearance."

Ahh, I see. So there really wasn't anything so wrong with the V2, it's just the price issue. My conclusion is that Steve only likes Nikon 1 V-series cameras when they are $400 or less. That's when he wrote his glowing reviews of the V1. That's why he initially bagged on the V2 (at $800 it was too expensive). That seems to be his largest complaint with the V3 (at $1200 it's too expensive). He even says he wants the V3 to sell for $399. Well don't we all? I do think he is correct in that Nikon's initial prices are too high. Once the dust settles, though, people need semi-objective reviews to know whether the camera is good or bad, regardless of the price tag. He never gave us that article on the V2. Given his initial negativity towards the V2, I'm laughing that it is now suddenly just fine in comparison to the V3 (if it goes on a fire sale).

Happy V2 owner here. I bought it in spite of Steve's opinion. Though I don't expect to buy a V3 any time soon, I sure wouldn't be swayed away from it by this semi-rant of a semi-article.

I talked about it above, but Steve wasn't always a fan of the V2. His semi-review of it when it came out was somewhat negative. I find it interesting that he suddenly seems to have a more favorable opinion of it.

Steve's certainly entitled to his opinion, but I also remember when he gave a fairly non-glowing mini-review of the V2. What did it really come down to at that time? Price. That was when the V1 wsa on fire sale for about $300. The V2 was going for its initial release price of $800 at that time. So... in his assessment of image quality versus the cost of the camera, he felt that the V1 was the clear winner. I suppose it was, to a certain degree, at those prices at that time. Does that mean that the V2 was somehow a highly flawed product? Well no, he never really cited any evidence of that, he just didn't think the V2 offered enough image improvement over the V1 to justify the cost difference. As a result of Steve's relatively negative review, a whole bunch of people wrote off the V2.

Well, here we are again. The V3 is even more expensive, the pictures aren't a gigantic leap forward in IQ, and Steve declares he's may not do a full review of the V3 due to his disappointment. Well... he only gave a very brief review of the V2 but... wait for it... now he says:

"I have some nice 1 system lenses so I may buy a V2 once it goes to fire sale clearance."

Ahh, I see. So there really wasn't anything so wrong with the V2, it's just the price issue. My conclusion is that Steve only likes Nikon 1 V-series cameras when they are $400 or less. That's when he wrote his glowing reviews of the V1. That's why he initially bagged on the V2 (at $800 it was too expensive). That seems to be his largest complaint with the V3 (at $1200 it's too expensive). He even says he wants the V3 to sell for $399. Well don't we all? I do think he is correct in that Nikon's initial prices are too high. Once the dust settles, though, people need semi-objective reviews to know whether the camera is good or bad, regardless of the price tag. He never gave us that article on the V2. Given his initial negativity towards the V2, I'm laughing that it is now suddenly just fine in comparison to the V3 (if it goes on a fire sale).

Happy V2 owner here. I bought it in spite of Steve's opinion. Though I don't expect to buy a V3 any time soon, I sure wouldn't be swayed away from it by this semi-rant of a semi-article.

To be fair, I think it's entirely appropriate to evaluate these cameras on what they deliver relative to their price - and the price of competing products in the market.

I like the V2, but I never would have bought it for $800 for the body, $900 for the kit. It simply doesn't stand up to several cameras that are more well rounded in the $699 to $899 kit prices. There are SOME things it does better - burst shooting, and continuous tracking AF, but for MOST things, the E-M10, GX7, and a6000 are better.

For $400-500, I can buy it as a niche product for the specific things it does exceptionally well. But it's never going to be my camera for shooting in low light conditions.